Less than a month after the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Germantown, the city has voluntarily dismissed charges against resident Alexis Luttrell for keeping skeletons in her yard beyond the 30-day limit set by Germantown's property maintenance code. Luttrell cited her First Amendment rights to challenge the citation, and FIRE filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the ordinance while representing Luttrell in municipal court. "Holidays come and go, but the First Amendment is here year-round," said FIRE attorney Colin McDonell in a press release. Additionally, the Germantown Board of Mayor and Aldermen will consider repealing the city's holiday decorations ordinance. Following a comprehensive review with the administration and city attorneys, it was recommended that the ordinance be eliminated, according to the Commercial Appeal. A first reading on repealing the ordinance was on the agenda for today’s board meeting.

A new legal settlement will ensure that all deaf incarcerated individuals in Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) custody have access to videophones, sign language interpreters and other accommodations that allow them to participate in programming and services behind bars, WPLN News reports. The settlement marks the conclusion of a lawsuit filed in 2020 by Disability Rights Tennessee and three deaf incarcerated men, who alleged TDOC was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide communication access for deaf inmates. Under the terms of the settlement, TDOC said it would provide interpreters for interactions such as intake and orientation, medical appointments, educational programming and disciplinary proceedings. The department also will provide videophones at every facility housing deaf prisoners, as well as at intake facilities, to allow those individuals to communicate via sign language.

Tennessee schools could be allowed to deny enrollment or charge tuition based on citizenship status under a bill advancing in the statehouse. SB836 passed the Senate Education Committee 5-4 last week, setting up a challenge to a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the right to education for students regardless of immigration status. The House bill, HB793, sponsored by Rep. William Lamberth, R-Portland, is scheduled to be heard in the K-12 Subcommittee tomorrow. Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixon, a sponsor of the bill, said he proposed the legislation in response to a now-rescinded resolution from the Rutherford County School Board that a surge in students needing English language courses had placed a financial strain on the district. Leaders in the state House have said that the long-term goal of the proposed law is to reverse the high court's 1982 ruling, according to WPLN News. An amendment added to the bill during Senate committee consideration would require schools to verify a student’s legal status before enrollment. Sen. Raumesh Akbari, D-Memphis, opposed the measure, saying the administrative cost of verifying students’ legal statuses, along with the cost of defending lawsuits against the state, exceeds the cost of educating undocumented children.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed the development of a new structure for handling civil appointments for indigents as well as criminal conflicts. Under the plan, the Tennessee Supreme Court would establish the “Indigent Representation Commission.” This commission would provide oversight and management for the indigent representation system, including the proposed "Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel." The commission would be governed by Tennessee Supreme Court Rule, like existing supreme court boards and commissions, and would manage indigent representation tasks presently handled largely by the courts. The commission also would work closely with other stakeholders to review and implement policies to improve the system. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee. Watch for more details about the plan in upcoming issues of TBA Today.

The TBA Access to Justice Committee is accepting nominations for the 2025 Public Service Awards. The annual awards recognize outstanding commitment to access to justice in three categories: work performed by an attorney employed by an organization primarily involved in providing legal representation to the indigent, pro bono work performed by a private or corporate attorney, and a strong commitment to pro bono service by a Tennessee law student or recent graduate. Nominations are due by March 31. Awards will be presented during the TBA Annual Convention in June.

The Legal Aid Society of Middle Tennessee and the Cumberlands (LAS) is seeking feedback to assess and strengthen its Volunteer Lawyers Program (VLP), with the goal of ensuring that there are meaningful and well-supported pro bono opportunities for the private bar. As part of this effort, LAS has created a survey to hear directly from attorneys about their experiences, motivations and challenges to engaging in pro bono and will utilize the results to help identify the most impactful pro bono opportunities for both attorneys and clients. The survey, which takes about 15 minutes, is open until March 14.

The Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court has proposed the development of a new structure for handling civil appointments for indigents and to handle criminal conflicts. Under the plan, the Tennessee Supreme Court would establish an “Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel,” with oversight by an “Indigent Representation Commission.” The office would manage an estimated 76,000 cases each year, employing one statewide executive director and three attorneys — one in each grand division — as well as up to two full time or four part time attorneys who will all maintain their own caseloads. The office will implement strategic compensation structures using a combination of retainer, flat fee and hourly contracts, offering more competitive, predictable and intermittent compensation for attorneys who take appointed cases. The Supreme Court and the TBA believe that this new structure will better address the impending crisis in the administration of justice in Tennessee. Learn more about the plan and indigent representation in Tennessee and watch for our ongoing coverage of this issue. 

This week's TBA Legislative Updates podcast features TBA lobbyists Berkley Schwarz of Pier Strategies LLC and Brad Lampley and Ashley Harbin of Adams and Reese. This week, they discuss several key bills, including SB1052/HB1355, which amends Tenn. Code Ann. §36-1-102(45)(B) to clarify that a biological father who only provides token support does not qualify as a putative father; SB540/HB492, addressing custody determinations and failure to pay child support; SB541/HB906, related to the TBA probate study group’s legislation; SB394/HB569, regarding the selection of a settlement agent in real property transactions; and SB943/HB1255, which focuses on continuing education for judges handling child custody cases. The podcast also covers the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts' (AOC) plan for indigent representation on behalf of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Watch Director Michelle Long present the AOC’s budget request, including funding for a new Office of Indigent Conflicts and Civil Counsel, which would oversee the state’s indigent representation system. Her testimony begins at 1:31:04. Listeners can tune in to the podcast on the TBA website or directly through this link.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Misty Coleman alleges that she fell and broke her ankle after slipping on the wet shower floor of a county jail. This accident led Coleman to pursue constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims under Ohio law against the county and many corrections officers and medical personnel. The district court dismissed all claims against all parties. Coleman’s appeal raises a mix of substantive and procedural questions. As for the substantive: Did Coleman adequately allege that the slippery shower violated the Due Process Clause? Did she adequately allege that a county policy or custom was behind her poor medical care? And may the county invoke state-law immunity from her negligence claim at the pleading stage? As for the procedural: When did Coleman’s claims accrue and start the running of the statute of limitations? Did her amended complaint (which named actual corrections officers and medical personnel) “relate back” to the date of her original complaint (which named “John Doe” and “Jane Doe” defendants) for statute-of-limitations purposes? And can Coleman rely on equitable tolling to delay the running of the limitations period? We agree with the district court on the answers to all six questions. We thus affirm its dismissal of Coleman’s complaint. In sum, Coleman identifies nothing in the relevant factual and legal sources—her complaint and Ohio law—that justifies her equitable-tolling request. She thus has not met her burden to show that she qualifies for this doctrine. See Saalim, 97 F.4th at 1012; Roach, 2022 WL 2211529, at *2. We affirm.